Analysis of Conditionality or Preventiveness of Fault in Iranian and American contractual liability

There is a disagreement between lawyers in Iranian and American law with respect to conditionality or preventiveness of fault in contract liability. Therefore, the question is raised whether fault basically contributes to contract liability or not? Those who believe in preventiveness of fault state that since there is no reference to fault in Iranian law, thus the obligor is liable as soon as he fails to fulfil the obligation and some American lawyers state that a contract is a choice between obligation fulfillment and damage payment; therefore they conclude that fault has no place in contracts and is considered as a "preventive factor". However, it seems that fault has a conditional state because its contribution to contract liability prevents contract breaches, creates a fair relationship between the parties and encourages confronting damages to increase benefits for both parties to the contract. The aim of present comparative study is to analyze conditionality or preventiveness of fault together with analysis of related opinions using a descriptive-analytical methodology and the main research question is that whether fault in contract law is a condition to creation of contract liability or prevent it? The hypothesis of present study argues for conditionality of fault and its multiple consequences.